Annual Report: 2004-2005

As indicated earlier, as part of the proactive mandate of the commissioner’s office, each year a department (or departments) is selected for review and a report card is completed. The review is conducted to determine the extent to which the department is meeting its responsibilities under the Access to Information (ATI) Act. The responsibilities and requirements can be set out in the Act or its Regulations, such as the timelines required to respond to an access request. Or, the responsibilities may emanate from Treasury Board Secretariat or departmental policies, procedures or other documentation in place to support the access to information process.

Fundamental to the access to information regime are the principles set out in the "Purposes" section of the Access to Information Act. These principles are:

• Government information should be available to the public;

• Necessary exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific;

• Decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government.

Previous report cards issued since 1999, and those in Part I of this chapter, focused on the deemed refusal of access requests, the situations that may have led to the deemed refusals and recommendations for eventually eliminating the problem. In 2004-05, the scope of the report cards was broadened. The scope now seeks to capture an extensive array of data and statistical information to determine how an ATI office and a department are supporting their responsibilities under the Act. The new report card is divided into chapters on the:

• Access process and how it is managed

• Deemed-refusal situation

• Resources devoted to ATI and their adequacy

• Leadership framework to create a culture of access to information in the institution

• Information management framework as an underpinning of ATI

• Complaint profile for ATI from the perspective of the Office of the Information Commissioner.

In 2004-05, three institutions were selected for review using the new report card format – Justice Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Library and Archives Canada. Each department completed an extensive Report Card Questionnaire. The completed questionnaire was used as the starting point for an interview with the ATI coordinator of each institution. In addition, a random sample of approximately 15 completed access request files were reviewed to determine how decisions about access requests were made, approved and documented.

The grading scale used in the new report cards is described in the following table.

On the above grading scale, Justice Canada, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, and Library and Archives Canada each rated an "F". Their performance was Red Alert.

The report card on Justice Canada made a number of recommendations for ATI operations. Of particular note, it recommended, as an essential component in the administrative framework to support the operation of the Access to Information Act, the development of an ATI operational plan for the ATIP office. The ATI operational plan would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities to implement the business plan developed for the ATIP office. The business plan is essentially a business case on the need for additional resources for the ATIP office. Other recommendations in the report card focused on the need to have up-to-date comprehensive documentation in place to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Access to Information Act. These individuals require ATI training to support the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

This report card identified the need for an administrative framework to support the operation of the Access to Information Act through the development of an ATI improvement and operational plan for the ATIP office. The plan would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities. The plan could be used as an operational framework to manage improvements, guide day-to-day activities and manage the implementation of recommendations in their report card. The plan is also a method of engaging and obtaining senior management support for departmental improvements in ATI activities. Other recommendations in the report card focused on the need to have up-to-date comprehensive documentation in place to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Access to Information Act. These individuals require ATI training to support the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

The report card recommended the development of an ATI operational plan for the ATIP division. The plan would establish priorities, tasks and resources, deliverables, milestones, timeframes and responsibilities to ensure compliance with response deadlines and appropriate application of exemptions. An internal task force has already examined the 18 to 20-month backlog of access and privacy requests and proposed systemic, innovative and durable solutions to the situation.

As in the report cards for the other two institutions, other recommendations in the Library and Archives Canada report card focused on the need to have up-to-date comprehensive documentation in place to promote consistent decision-making by individuals with responsibilities in the operations supporting the Access to Information Act. These individuals require ATI training to support the fulfillment of their responsibilities.

All three institutions have recognized that there are serious and persistent problems in the processes that support the administration of the Access to Information Act in their institution. Each institution in 2004-05 took some positive initial remedial actions. But there was no commitment at the time of the report cards on precisely how and when the serious deficiencies described in the report cards will be addressed and how improvements will be sustained.

A critical component of the administration of the Access to Information Act is the leadership role of the ATI coordinator and senior management in a department. Senior management exercises leadership by identifying access to information as a departmental priority and then acting upon this by providing the appropriate resources, technology, training and policies. Together with the ATI coordinator, it is important for senior management to foster a culture of openness and access to departmental information, by adopting and staying engaged in a remedial plan with clearly defined deliverables and critical dates.

The full text of the report cards is available on our website at www.infocom.gc.ca.